A Small Observation About Camera Size & Public Psychology

bmattock said:
The word 'ignorant' is unfortunately misunderstood by many people, which in itself is ironic - since a lack of understanding of the word 'ignorant' is itself ignorant.

As you state - to be ignorant is to lack information or knowledge. This is neither a crime nor an accusation of stupidity.

Unfortunately, to tell someone they are ignorant is to call them stupid - as far as they are concerned.

I wish this was not the case, but it seems to be. I have no problem with the word myself, and I am quite ignorant of many things, and have only a basic understanding of others. I am not ashamed to be ignorant, because I can cure my ignorance if I so choose, by learning. I am capable of learning because I am intelligent - as are most people, though many would prefer not to execise that particular muscle.

I confess that I have somewhat less than acceptable patience with people whom (I believe) are choosing to remain intentionally ignorant than I do with people who are ignorant and wish to learn. I have nothing but sympathy for the stupid - it is not their fault and there is nothing to be done about it.

But although I am trying to limit my use of the word, I mean no insult if I say to a person that they are ignorant. I only say 'idiot' if I mean 'idiot' and 'ignorant' is not the same word.
Click to expand...

Exactly so, and if I had meant to say stupid, then that's the word I'd have used.

In my origial reply, that if I really want to attract attention (ignorant or otherwise) from people, then I'd bring out my monorail, the implication was that the amount of attention I draw depends a lot on the type and degree of public display I present. Someone who is being sneaky, and who isn't very good at it, is going to attract attention too, and the immediate assumption is that he is up to no good. The thing to do is just openly do what you are there to do without being obnoxious about it. I find that if I do so, then most people just assume that I have a right to do it and ignore me. Incidentally, if I behave in an ingratiating manner, then their first instinct will also be to assume that I am about to take advantage of them in some way.
 
Last edited:
FallisPhoto said:
In my origial reply, that if I really want to attract attention (ignorant or otherwise)from people, then I'd bring out my monorail, the implication was that the amount of attention I draw depends a lot on the type and degree of public display I present. Someone who is being sneaky, and who isn't very good at it, is going to attract attention too, and the immediate assumption is that he is up to no good. The thing to do is just openly do what you are there to do without being obnoxious about it. I find that if I do so, then most people just assume that I have a right to do it and ignore me. Incidentally, if I behave in an ingratiating manner, then their first instinct will also be to assume that I am about to take advantage of them in some way.
Click to expand...

When I attend an event and take out my camera and begin to work, I am often presumed to be 'the media' and given access and deference. I do not wear 'press passes' or other credentials around my neck, I just carry my camera bag and camera. I guess I just act like someone who is there working and need not be bothered.

I have had people get in the way of my shots and apologize to me, when I feel I should be apologizing to them - they're there to enjoy the event, I'm just snapping away like a fool.

I would like to say it is all down to attitude - and perhaps that plays a role in it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157603698281740/
 
You guys should read some LeCarre....spies are taught to slam doors and speak loudly, those are the city sounds that people don't pay attention to.
Furtive behaviour of any kind draws attention.
 
Size does matter. When I had my Mamiya C330 people always stared at it and me. It wasn't my paranoia, as my wife told me to sell it, because she thought that someone was going to mug me.
 
bmattock said:
I posted something on this recently. I do not think it has to do with the camera, as such. It has to do with breaking through the wall of privacy that people build around themselves in cities so that we can manage to be around each other without going into convulsions.

In other words, we build a coping mechanism into ourselves such that we simply do not 'see' many things that might otherwise disturb us.

It is not unlike a person who sleeps soundly through a thunderstorm, but who wakes when the doorknob is jiggled by persons unknown. One represents an event which his subconscious believes he need not be concerned about, and the other represents a potential threat.

...

This also helps to explain why a photographer in the past might wander through a playground taking photos and simply not be paid attention to - most people didn't even 'see' the photographer. In today's society, people's sensibilities are tuned to potential predator danger to their children - and they zero in on a person who carries a camera into an area where there are children as if he were carrying six Uzis and a rocket-launcher.

Being invisible in public is often just a matter of not crossing the 'I might be dangerous' threshold of people's perceptions. Until that moment, you don't exist, regardless of what camera you carry.
Click to expand...

I also think you 're quite right to emphasize a photographer's attitude as what raises other people's awareness of his presence. But while 'attitude' is the direct reason behind registering the activity of a photographer, the camera may still have to do something indirectly with it.

I believe this relates to your statement about camera size and type. However, I don't think it is the size of the camera or the shape, color, or style. I think it has to do with what attracts the subconscious of the average person-in-the-street to 'notice' you. Generally, this involves a perception of danger. The perception is incorrect of course, but once you've attracted notice, you're nicked.
Click to expand...

What I am thinking is that the camera affects the perception a photographer has of himself hence changing his photographing attitude. By doing that, it influences the kind of vibes a person sends to others while photographing and, indirectly, changes others' response to him. There is one notable exception: None of that applies to photographers who are immune to self-styling based on gear. One may ponder how often that happens but that's another story.

For those who are not immune to altering self-perceptions based on gear, we know how the story goes, what with all these thoughts of emulating certain famous photographers by duplicating their camera, film etc. How often is it, for instance, that one changes their attitude just because they feel they look more professional just by carrying a Canon with a big lens or a Leica or what you have? Even more, we all know on this board how important it is for some people that their camera is 'small', 'silent' or 'stealthy', as they say. The important bit is not that the camera is all these things for others (for with the right attitude they wouldn't care, or so the 'camera does not matter' argument goes) but that it really makes their owner feel that it is. Only then, presumably, will they go out, finally unencumbered by their perception of themselves as noticeable by the crowds. Only then do they feel OK with themselves photographing people candidly and only then are they in the position to send the right vibes - the ones that do not signal danger for people around them. It's possible, I believe, to expand this type of reasoning to take in the familiar way the 'history' or the 'myth' of the camera (and not just its physical properties) influences directly someone's stance as a photographer and indirectly others' perception of him.

Just some thoughts, could be wrong.
 
Alkis, I take your points - well said. My observations on cameras is that the general public does not know a Leica from a Kodak point-and-shoot. A camera is a camera to them. I frankly think I could be holding a "My Little Pony" toy camera and would get precisely the same reaction (mostly none) from the crowd. They don't see me - so they don't see my camera. I could be holding a rubber chicken up to my eye.

I did not stop to think about how the photographer thinks about the camera he or she is holding - if it disturbs their own 'feelings' about what they're about.

Good grief, I feel like pulling a Darth Vader and saying "I feel a great disturbance in the Force."
 
Interesting conversation on this thread. Me, and a fellow photographer went out on a local market shoot a while back. He had Mamiya C-220 while I was shooting with a C33. Previously, I have seen him work with a Mamiya Press, and the ease with which he used to walk up to people, or shoot in a crowd, without being asked a question as to what he was doing.

On this occasion, I tried the straight-forward approach and walked up to people. Most would point at the camera and go, "oh! that's an antique. how old are you?", or "nice camera, does it still take pics?". I went on to do some polite conversation, and ended up asking if they would mind me taking some shots. The reaction each time was go right ahead. After waiting for them return back into their flow/work, I would snap some shots. It really beats sniping with a longer lens or acting furtive for a couple of shots. I never had this experience when using a DSLR/SLR. My observation is, more professional (SLR-ish) the camera looks, the more afraid people are to face it.
 
naruto said:
Interesting conversation on this thread. Me, and a fellow photographer went out on a local market shoot a while back. He had Mamiya C-220 while I was shooting with a C33. Previously, I have seen him work with a Mamiya Press, and the ease with which he used to walk up to people, or shoot in a crowd, without being asked a question as to what he was doing.

On this occasion, I tried the straight-forward approach and walked up to people. Most would point at the camera and go, "oh! that's an antique. how old are you?", or "nice camera, does it still take pics?". I went on to do some polite conversation, and ended up asking if they would mind me taking some shots. The reaction each time was go right ahead. After waiting for them return back into their flow/work, I would snap some shots. It really beats sniping with a longer lens or acting furtive for a couple of shots. I never had this experience when using a DSLR/SLR. My observation is, more professional (SLR-ish) the camera looks, the more afraid people are to face it.
Click to expand...

My wife called me the other night to tell me that she had seen a "Forensic Files" type TV show where the star had been waving around a 'radiation detector' of some sort. It was a Sekonic L-358. She recognized it because she bought it for me many Christmases ago. 99 out of 100 people would not have known it.

I would argue that in your case, you've already broken through public perception - they've acknowledged you - you're nicked - before the issue of what kind of camera you're carrying comes up. I still believe that most people don't know a camera from a loaf of French bread.
 
bmattock said:
I would argue that in your case, you've already broken through public perception - they've acknowledged you - you're nicked - before the issue of what kind of camera you're carrying comes up. I still believe that most people don't know a camera from a loaf of French bread.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's possible that they are more friendly because they recognize it as a camera. Well, they will not mistake it for the loaf of French bread you get in this part of the world. :)
 
Agreed, & that's 1 reason why I think gear choice, & the importance of gear, can become such a passionate issue w/some photographers.

I also agree w/bmattock that most people are (rightly) ignorant about cameras, generally equating bigger w/"more professional." What I find interesting is how differently I'm treated by other serious amateur & pro photographers depending on what camera I'm using. There really is a kind of "serious camera" magnet effect when I'm using an RF (of any brand) or medium format (again any brand) that seems to attract attention from other photographers, though I think it's mostly the fact that I'm actually using film (as in "Dude, you must be hardcore, because you're shooting film," which happens to be mostly true in my case). I think if I took enough notes, I could come up w/a demographic profile (Leicas & RFs attracting PJ types, medium format attracting the weddding & portrait shooters, large format attracting the landscape & art photographers, etc.)

telenous said:
I also think you 're quite right to emphasize a photographer's attitude as what raises other people's awareness of his presence. But while 'attitude' is the direct reason behind registering the activity of a photographer, the camera may still have to do something indirectly with it.

What I am thinking is that the camera affects the perception a photographer has of himself hence changing his photographing attitude. By doing that, it influences the kind of vibes a person sends to others while photographing and, indirectly, changes others' response to him. There is one notable exception: None of that applies to photographers who are immune to self-styling based on gear. One may ponder how often that happens but that's another story.
Click to expand...
 
furcafe said:
Agreed, & that's 1 reason why I think gear choice, & the importance of gear, can become such a passionate issue w/some photographers.

I also agree w/bmattock that most people are (rightly) ignorant about cameras, generally equating bigger w/"more professional." What I find interesting is how differently I'm treated by other serious amateur & pro photographers depending on what camera I'm using. There really is a kind of "serious camera" magnet effect when I'm using an RF (of any brand) or medium format (again any brand) that seems to attract attention from other photographers, though I think it's mostly the fact that I'm actually using film (as in "Dude, you must be hardcore, because you're shooting film," which happens to be mostly true in my case). I think if I took enough notes, I could come up w/a demographic profile (Leicas & RFs attracting PJ types, medium format attracting the weddding & portrait shooters, large format attracting the landscape & art photographers, etc.)
Click to expand...

I think you're right about the 'other shooter' phenomenon, I've seen it myself. In fact, it's kind of weird, sneaking glances at each other's equipment, making that kind of half-look of recognition, etc. Creepy.

What usually clues me in - not the digital SLR, everybody's got one these days. Not even an offboard flash. But a Sto-Fen Omnibounce or other flash modifier tells me that they are a) serious and b) probably have a vague clue what they're doing. Of course, seeing a classic rangefinder would give me the same impression, but I seldom see anyone with a film camera of any kind anymore. And I seriously doubt the public has the slightest notion what any of that means.
 
I don't find it creepy. It can be annoying & distracting to have other photographers engage you in gear talk on those rare occasions that I'm being paid or otherwise forced to be really serious about my shooting. Most of the time, though, it just signifies my membership in the photography/AV geek club, which may be sad, but not creepy (@ least in my social circle). :p

bmattock said:
I think you're right about the 'other shooter' phenomenon, I've seen it myself. In fact, it's kind of weird, sneaking glances at each other's equipment, making that kind of half-look of recognition, etc. Creepy.

What usually clues me in - not the digital SLR, everybody's got one these days. Not even an offboard flash. But a Sto-Fen Omnibounce or other flash modifier tells me that they are a) serious and b) probably have a vague clue what they're doing. Of course, seeing a classic rangefinder would give me the same impression, but I seldom see anyone with a film camera of any kind anymore. And I seriously doubt the public has the slightest notion what any of that means.
Click to expand...
 
dadsm3 said:
You guys should read some LeCarre....spies are taught to slam doors and speak loudly, those are the city sounds that people don't pay attention to.
Furtive behaviour of any kind draws attention.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, in WWII, it was found that verbally or physically questioning soldiers resulted in strong and determined reisistence. It was what they were expecting and had prepared themselves for -- but you could get a surprising amount of information from many of them if you just gave them an inoccuous-looking form to fill out as part of "internment processing." That very often slipped past their radar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom